Re: Brexit Anyone? : Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:53 am  

GUBRATS wrote:

Is it just me or does it seem that those voting remain cannot help themselves in insulting those with a different opinion ?

When a large amount are xenophobes and racists what do you expect?

Re: Brexit Anyone? : Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:01 am  

GUBRATS wrote:

Is it just me or does it seem that those voting remain cannot help themselves in insulting those with a different opinion ?

Probably right.
Just walked down to vote with my dumb neighbour professing his firmly in the 'Leave' camp opinions.

Re: Brexit Anyone? : Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:03 am  

LifeLongHKRFan wrote:

When a large amount are xenophobes and racists what do you expect?

A large amount ? , or all ?

Don't sit on the fence

Re: Brexit Anyone? : Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:07 am  

WIZEB wrote:

Probably right.
Just walked down to vote with my dumb neighbour professing his firmly in the 'Leave' camp opinions.

, so it seems

Re: Brexit Anyone? : Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:24 am  

Well I've just voted out, then on my way to work I spat on a Polish kid.

Re: Brexit Anyone? : Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:25 am  

GUBRATS wrote:

:D , so it seems

It's ok with me though.
I don't think any the worse of the mentally challenged.

Re: Brexit Anyone? : Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:30 am  

King Street Cat wrote:

Well I've just voted out, then on my way to work I spat on a Polish kid.

Don't blame you.
Was he fishing for carp for his evening meal when you phlegmed on him?
Scoundrels!!!

Re: Brexit Anyone? : Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:40 am  

For those worrying about the house prices ready to fall through the floor as soon as you tick the exit box don't worry.

It was correct information used to scare everybody into voting remain.

What the government meant was house prices would not fall by 18%, they said they would grow in value but in 10 years they'd grow in value 18% less if we left than if we stayed.

It was a good piece of trickery I'll give them that.

Basically if your house is worth £100,000 now and its projected growth in value to £150,000 in ten years time if we stay in the EU, what they meant to say is that it would only grow in value to £141,000 if we left.

I'd be happy with that, after all it doesn't matter how much our houses are worth so long as we don't go into negative equity, I plan on living in my home until I kick the bucket so what do I care.

Re: Brexit Anyone? : Thu Jun 23, 2016 8:05 am  

post wrote:

For those worrying about the house prices ready to fall through the floor as soon as you tick the exit box don't worry.

It was correct information used to scare everybody into voting remain.

What the government meant was house prices would not fall by 18%, they said they would grow in value but in 10 years they'd grow in value 18% less if we left than if we stayed.

It was a good piece of trickery I'll give them that.

Basically if your house is worth £100,000 now and its projected growth in value to £150,000 in ten years time if we stay in the EU, what they meant to say is that it would only grow in value to £141,000 if we left.

I'd be happy with that, after all it doesn't matter how much our houses are worth so long as we don't go into negative equity, I plan on living in my home until I kick the bucket so what do I care.

Are these the same ' experts ' that didn't realise offering 100% mortgages was a recipe for disaster , because I certainly did

Maybe it's the same ones that predicted the dreaded ' Millenuim Bug ' ? , now that was a scam and a half

Re: Brexit Anyone? : Thu Jun 23, 2016 8:41 am  

headhunter wrote: What about this one? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 40170.html What other 'costs' do you think should have been factored in? Other than "the cost of eroding British culture" (which is an argument I have actually heard used quite sincerely by some of the more fervent supporters of the Leave campaign). I'm not interested in "the cost of eroding British culture". I am interested in cost benefit analysis that makes serious attempts to cover all the costs of economic migration. That includes the opportunity costs of excluding people already here from rival goods and services, with particular attention to how immigration affects those things. Can't get a GP appointment for two weeks? That's a cost. Cannot get you child into your local school? That's a cost. It's facile to argue that the UK taxpayer should simply cough up more to rapidly scale those services, especially when we have no control over the demand, the "real world" doesn't work like that. Net migration at over 300k a year is massive, especially when it's part of a long term trend. It's not a case of just making things go a bit further, it's more like having to provide incremental infrastructure for a city the size of Nottingham each year, that kind of investment has a different level of cost to absorbing lower levels of immigration. I believe HM Treasury did start a cost benefit analysis of the UK's EU membership when Ken Clarke was Chancellor of the Exchequer but he canned it when he found out. Studies are rarely free from any bias, but something like that is likely to be a far more serious policy tool than the stream of "studies" put out by groups on all sides for propaganda purposes (this is generally true of most "research" by pressure groups and special interest organisations, regardless of whether we approve or disapprove of their ends). Besides my other point, which never attracts any attempt at challenge, is that economic migration is economic migration and should be treated like economic migration. I'm not against it, I'm against treating it as some sort of philanthropic foreign aid programme. Btw I don't really care where they come from as long as they leave any authoritarian, medieval or degenerate cultural practices behind e.g. FGM, honour killings, cousin marriage, violent homophobia/misogyny/anti-Semitism.

headhunter wrote: What about this one? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 40170.html What other 'costs' do you think should have been factored in? Other than "the cost of eroding British culture" (which is an argument I have actually heard used quite sincerely by some of the more fervent supporters of the Leave campaign). I'm not interested in "the cost of eroding British culture". I am interested in cost benefit analysis that makes serious attempts to cover all the costs of economic migration. That includes the opportunity costs of excluding people already here from rival goods and services, with particular attention to how immigration affects those things. Can't get a GP appointment for two weeks? That's a cost. Cannot get you child into your local school? That's a cost. It's facile to argue that the UK taxpayer should simply cough up more to rapidly scale those services, especially when we have no control over the demand, the "real world" doesn't work like that. Net migration at over 300k a year is massive, especially when it's part of a long term trend. It's not a case of just making things go a bit further, it's more like having to provide incremental infrastructure for a city the size of Nottingham each year, that kind of investment has a different level of cost to absorbing lower levels of immigration. I believe HM Treasury did start a cost benefit analysis of the UK's EU membership when Ken Clarke was Chancellor of the Exchequer but he canned it when he found out. Studies are rarely free from any bias, but something like that is likely to be a far more serious policy tool than the stream of "studies" put out by groups on all sides for propaganda purposes (this is generally true of most "research" by pressure groups and special interest organisations, regardless of whether we approve or disapprove of their ends). Besides my other point, which never attracts any attempt at challenge, is that economic migration is economic migration and should be treated like economic migration. I'm not against it, I'm against treating it as some sort of philanthropic foreign aid programme. Btw I don't really care where they come from as long as they leave any authoritarian, medieval or degenerate cultural practices behind e.g. FGM, honour killings, cousin marriage, violent homophobia/misogyny/anti-Semitism.